From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,583275b6950bf4e6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,5f529c91be2ac930 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 11232c,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid11232c,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-05-01 12:29:55 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: gautier_niouzes@hotmail.com (Gautier) Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.lang.ada,misc.misc Subject: Re: Using Ada for device drivers? (Was: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died) Date: 1 May 2003 12:29:55 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <17cd177c.0305011129.2eab5fb8@posting.google.com> References: <9fa75d42.0304230424.10612b1a@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0304240446.493ca906@posting.google.com> <3EA7E0E3.8020407@crs4.it> <9fa75d42.0304240950.45114a39@posting.google.com> <4a885870.0304291909.300765f@posting.google.com> <416273D61ACF7FEF.82C1D1AC17296926.FF0BFD4934A03813@lp.airnews.net> <9fa75d42.0305010621.55e99deb@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.218.91.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1051817395 24058 127.0.0.1 (1 May 2003 19:29:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 May 2003 19:29:55 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:62994 comp.object:62488 comp.lang.ada:36818 misc.misc:13869 Date: 2003-05-01T19:29:55+00:00 List-Id: softeng3456: > But you are assuming a stricter type safety translates > to higher quality. > > There is little evidence for that. Type safety is > ONE thing that helps quality. But if a little > bit of sugar in a recipe is good, ten times > the sugar will not make it taste ten times > tastier. There are natural limits. That's right. There are upper _and_ lower limits, by the way... > Ultimately, type safety only catches relatively minor > errors typically made by novice programmers. It cannot > catch errors of design and logic, which are the more complex > sources of quality defects. > > Most programmers do not stay novice for their > whole careers. (If they do, they should consider > other careers too.) So the role of type safety > in assuring quality is limited. ... if you assume that the programmers will always do novice- sized programs. With the scale of projects the usefulness of type safety grows. Type safety is annoying on small programs and comfortable for large ones. > That having said, if you cannot hire well, a good type > safe language might help in eliminating smaller > errors. But then, you are never going to have > anything working anyway, so what's the big deal > about eliminating smaller syntax-level errors? It is not only on syntax-level (then it would be just for the pleasure of it), it prevents lots of run-time errors that would not appear immediately. So, eliminating them _is_ a big deal, because, you can concentrate on refining the design and logic issues instead of chasing these errors. > If you can hire well, a super-strong type safe > language will only annoy your best programmers, > who don't need the type safety to avoid bugs > but have to work around it for all the things > that they do need to do. You can still deliver > projects in that case, but your quality > will be poorer, not better, and you will > have taken much longer for no good reason. > (Though the relation to job-safety issues > is apparent, which is why bureaucrat types > might love such languages.) You simply ignore the huge debugging time provided by poorly-typed languages and its effective relation to job safety. So what ? It's a question of a good proportion of sugar: not too much, not too few :-) ________________________________________________________ Gautier -- http://www.mysunrise.ch/users/gdm/gsoft.htm NB: For a direct answer, e-mail address on the Web site!